12 Supplementary IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 72/2026 CrlM(174/2026) GHULAM AHMAD SHEIKH ….. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Irfan Ahmad Mir, Advocate. with Mr. Shabir Ahmad Shah, Advocate. V/s UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION HANDWARA ….. Respondent(s) Through: None. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge ORDER 13.05.2026 1. The petitioner, has challenged order dated 05.02.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Handwara whereby application of the petitioner/accused seeking recall and reexamination of PW-1/prosecutrix whose statement has already been recorded by the trial court on 11.04.2011. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record of the trial court. 3. It appears that the petitioner who is facing trial for offence under Sections 366, 376 RPC in a case arising out of FIR No. 162/2009 of Police Station, Handwara, had during the trial of P a g e | 2 CRM(M) 72/2026 CrlM(174/2026 the case made an application under Section 540 of J&K Cr.PC seeking recall and re-examination of the PW-1/prosecutrix. 4. In the application, it was submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix to some extent connects the petitioner to commission of the offence. It has been further submitted that the petitioner is of the view that the prosecutrix has been forced to record her statement against him and therefore, if she is not recalled and re-examined, the petitioner is going to suffer irreparable loss. 5. The learned trial court vide impugned order has proceeded to dismiss the application of the petitioner on the reasoning that the application does not disclose any new fact or circumstance which could not have been brought on record at the time of cross examination of the prosecutrix. It has also been observed by the learned trial court that repeated examination and cross examination of the prosecutrix would subject her to unnecessary harassment. 6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the learned trial court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 540 of J&K Cr.PC which vests power with a criminal court to recall and re-examine a witness for arriving at just decision. It has been contended that the P a g e | 3 CRM(M) 72/2026 CrlM(174/2026 prosecutrix is required to be re-examined on material contradictions and in case, the petitioner is not allowed to do so, it would violate his right to fair trial. It has also been contended that the prosecutrix has not been confronted with her statement recorded under Section 164 A Cr.PC which was necessary in the circumstances of the case. 7. The contention of the petitioner that the prosecutrix was not confronted with her statement under Section 164 A of Cr.PC is contrary to the record. A perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the learned trial court would clearly show that during her examination in chief, the Public Prosecutor has brought the contents of the statement recorded under Section 164-A of Cr.PC to the notice of the prosecutrix and in fact, the document has been exhibited as EXPW1/1. 8. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the prosecutrix has been forced to make statement against him is concerned, no such suggestion has been given to the prosecutrix during her cross-examination. Even in the application no particulars of the alleged force or coercion have been mentioned therein. Merely on the basis of vague assertions made in the application, the court cannot exercise its powers under Section 540 of J&K Cr.PC to recall and re-examine a witness. P a g e | 4 CRM(M) 72/2026 CrlM(174/2026 9. The petitioner has failed to justify any reason much less a plausible reason that would have persuaded the learned trial court to exercise its powers under Section 540 of J&K Cr.PC in the instant case. The petition is, therefore, without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 13.05.2026 Aasif